If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Ask Questions Here!

Originally Posted by frazzledfozzle

Thanks for doing the multiple quote thingy I dont know how to do that and it has made what I've tried to say more understandable in the scheme of things

Quick tutorial: What you want to click the "reply with quote" button or the "("+)" button and then "Reply to thread." It will give you the quote inside what are called tags, they have brackets around the word "QUOTE=frazzledfozzle;986471" and "/QUOTE". I can't actually put the brackets in or it would turn it into a quote.

To make multiple quotes, simply separate out the lines you would like to respond to, and put the "QUOTE=frazzledfozzle;986471" tag in front, including brackets and the "/QUOTE" tag at the end. Those are forum speak for open quote and close quote. By changing the phrase after the = sign, you can quote from somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

The trouble with internet quotes is you never know if they're legitimate.

But it must have the brackets for the forum to read it right.

[/quote] And there must be an open quote and close quote tag in the right order or it won't work. For instance, this is quoted backwards.[quote]

Re: Ask Questions Here!

> they have brackets around the word "QUOTE=frazzledfozzle;986471" and "/QUOTE". I can't actually put the brackets in or it would turn it into a quote.

Using the above example, here is what it should look like with brackets in your Compose Reply window:

[QUOTE=frazzledfozzle;986471] quoted words here[/QUOTE]

Once posted, it would look like this:

Originally Posted by frazzledfozzle

quoted words here

A key concept is that brackets [] must always be balanced. There must be a closing bracket "]" for every opening bracket "[". If the brackets are not balanced, part of the BBCode itself will be displayed and quotes won't be in that nice box with the clickable link.

The above example with displayed BBCodes was accomplished with the use of the BBCode tag "NOPARSE". More on that and all BBCode is available in the BBCode link at the very bottom of every thread page.

Last edited by Rader Sidetrack; 08-15-2013 at 08:15 AM.
Reason: add more

Re: Ask Questions Here!

>>"The only way to have a sustainable system of beekeeping is to stop treating.

>Michael, I've stripped the nuance from your quote, because the opening sentence is what new beekeepers invariably hear. (including some of the most vociferous types on this thread).

I have no problem with that distillation in general.

>I maintain asking backyard beekeepers to sustain the massive, predictable losses that their implementation of this idea invariably results in is wasteful and counterproductive.

I am not asking them to sustain "massive predictable losses". Nor am I advising them to. I had no "massive predictable losses" when not treating once I had natural comb. I had "massive" losses both when treating and not treating on large cell comb.

The feral bees have already taken any genetic losses necessary and they are the genetic population I would expect a backyard beekeeper to leverage by raising their own queens and not treating.

>I maintain that rationalized and directed selection has been the system with which early modern agriculture has adopted to novel parasites. Directed selection requires 1) indentification of desirable traits, 2) amplification of these traits, 3) and backcrosses to mix with other selected traits.

That method is a system that requires constant and continuous control over both sides of the genetic equation, something that is impractical with bees in the large picture.

>For bees (like most other out-crossing species), isolation and saturation are essential to creating local races.

But the local feral bees are already saturating your gene pool...

>There is enormous inertia in species, they revert to type in unbounded outcrossing populations.

Exactly. That's why all of these complex, energy intensive breeding systems for particular traits will fail in the long run.

> We can also anticipate (viz. AHB) that local racial adaptation fixes very undesirable traits.

Which you can breed back out as we beekeepers have been doing for thousands of years. But I have not had an issue with that. People I know of in AHB areas only occasionally have a hive too hot to work.

>If small beekeepers want to participate in genetic selection, they should confederate as part of a larger program.

The "larger program" is already being done by nature but could certainly benefit greatly if people would stop bringing in outside stock that is genetically incapable of surviving on its own. The best way to participate is to stop weakening the gene pool with bees from different climates that can't survive on their own.

>Mike will correct me if I am wrong but I believe he states that he lost all of his bees when he was treating and (possibly)

I lost all of them to Varroa when treating on large cell, yes. I lost all of them to Varroa when not treating on large cell, yes. I now have winter losses, but no more losses to Varroa since regressing to natural comb.

> once since which he attributes to being away from the country for most of a year.

Actually I was gone 3 years/winters and with them swarming to the trees and winter losses and no management whatsoever, there were still about 30% of them doing great.

>Pretty sure he has said that he repopulated with packages.

Unfortunately, yes.

>I asked once if they were from a tf producer and never got a reply.

I don't remember seeing the question, sorry. I had no source of TF bees. My intention had been to requeen them all with my own queens. My schedule prevented that. Most of those put away huge amounts of honey and didn't make it through the winter. The ones that were my local stock did.

Re: Winter losses vs. Summer gains

You simply are not in the position to discuss anything about treatment free. Because to discuss the matter first you need knowledge. Knowledge is information + experience.

Your premise is nonsense. All sorts of knowledge is gained from sources other than direct experience.

Originally Posted by BernhardHeuvel

You have a lot of information, fine. But you do not understand what we have been telling you, because you lack knowledge. You cannot connect the dots.

That's your opinion. Or it could be. Since by your own admission your purpose here is to prevent me expressing any views, and you seem quite willing to disparage anything I say without regard to its content, it would be illogical of us to take anything you say about me at face value, even as representative of your own opinion.

Originally Posted by BernhardHeuvel

That is why anyone possibly could discuss the matter with you. You can't possibly understand, even if you read another ton of information.

I have discussed the matter with hundreds of people, including scientists directly involved in the effort to raise resistance and people who have been successful (unlike you). Over a considerable period of time.

Originally Posted by BernhardHeuvel

That is the reason why you should trust at least a little those people, who have done it.

Re: Ask Questions Here!

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

For that reason I've always regarded varroa as unnatural to EHB. It's semantics I know, but if you want to argue semantics with Bernhard over it, going by what the dictionary says, he is correct, as you have (unwittingly) pointed out.

I see what you mean, but I don't think it unsettles what I said. We may have started the problem (so the problem is unnatural in origin) but new predators/pests/diseases are also a very regular part of Nature, and Nature has a method for dealing with them. In this case, we know, if we leave her to it, she does it.

What I said about interference and cruelty at this stage remains true. The short term remedy of treatments is 'kind' - in the short term - but cruel in the longer term. The sum of suffering is greater. I stand by the countryman's adage: 'never help a wild animal', and am willing to defend the proposition that we must, for these purposes at least, regard the honeybee as a wild animal (because it mates openly).

To clarify a point probably lost in the general melee: I'm not against anyone treating as part of a systematic attempt to raise resistance without losing stock. I haven't chosen to try that way, but I'm fine with bernHard going the Soft Bond route, and I might take elements of it myself.

Re: Winter losses vs. Summer gains

Originally Posted by JWChesnut

If small beekeepers want to participate in genetic selection, they should confederate as part of a larger program. Not all apiaries are situated to benefit from wildings-type out-crossing. The prescription to "not treat to get to not treating" is inappropriate for these apiaries.

I agree with this, up to a point. The difficulty is knowing when you can successfully balance sound initial genetics and numbers against the undesirable features of the local population. I've taken a gamble that I'll be able to do it - though I was hopeful of a much better crop of good feral swarms and cut-outs this year than I got.

Knowing what the critical factors are is the first stage: estimating the pros and cons of initial (and present) stock against the likely drone input the second.

But it seems to me that a strategy of fast and hard increase from well assayed stock, and an effort to raise drone numbers (again from best stock) is a positive in all circumstances.

Re: Winter losses vs. Summer gains

Hi Mike,

what a "successful" treatment free beekeeper is, has been discussed before. And the discussion showed, that it is not easy to define.

Personally I don't think an apiary with untreated hives which "has bees", is successful. Because if you replace losses year after year with swarms, cutouts, splits and packages - that is not sustainable and never enhances the local stock.

The oldtimers here say, if you loose more than 3 % of your hives during winter, you do a poor job as a beekeeper. That was pre-varroa, though. Today up to 10 % loss every winter is considered normal. Most beekeepers here have much less losses each year. 0-5 %.

Also a bunch of hives that are in a poor state, fleshless, starving and generally weak, can't be seriously called a success. See the other thread thriving vs. treatment free. If I look into nature I see strong creatures with a good health. What have been showed me by some treatment free beekeepers was far away from it. I see the videos an Dee's hives and they do seem to be fairly strong. But where are the videos of your hives? And I would also be interested in videos and pictures of Michael Bush's hives. Just to get a feeling how hives do in other treatment free projects.

I also asked Michael, how many hives in total were killed in his project so far, excuse: let die. It would be nice to get an answer.

It also would be good to compare the number of hives available and those habitated. If you have 1,000 hives and just about 200 are habitated each year, that won't be a success in my eyes. Far from it.

I want people going treatment free successfully, meaning: do the transition more slowly. Take more time. Have much less or zero losses. Have strong and healthy colonies. In my experience the sturdiest colonies are very strong colonies.

From what I distilled from successful full-stop treatment free beekeepers, is, that they usually start with a high number of hives. Minimum 100, mostly 500-1,000 colonies. This is another start going treatment free, because the probability that there is a colony that adapts, is much higher than starting with one or two hives. Numbers do matter. Also most of them are experienced beekeepers, very experienced beekeepers. Bees don't die from beekeeper faults in their hands.

Bottom line. For beginners with a couple of hives it is more difficult if not impossible to go treatment free from now to tomorrow. Full stop. It is advisable for them to use slow approach. No haste, take your time. Beekeeping itself is difficult, learn bees first. Than go treatment free, slowly. It may need 50-100 years to get there, so there is no reason to run.

It would be good, if the big names in the treatment free world also would advise beginners to take the slow route. Full stop is not the only way, it is one way. And there are prerequisites to it: experience in beekeeping, high number of hives.

Not every beekeeper wants to keep 100 and more hives. But those beekeepers could found a local treatment free beekeeping association. 5 beekeepers with 10 hives, properly cared for, make 100 hives, too. Also (practical) experience is gained much better through local sharing.

Re: Winter losses vs. Summer gains

I want people going treatment free successfully, meaning: do the transition more slowly. Take more time. Have much less or zero losses. Have strong and healthy colonies.

...It is advisable for them to use slow approach.

No haste, take your time.

Than go treatment free, slowly. It may need 50-100 years to get there, so there is no reason to run.

It would be good, if the big names in the treatment free world also would advise beginners to take the slow route.

I keep asking, who has gone the slow route and succeeded?

Originally Posted by BernhardHeuvel

Minimum 100, mostly 500-1,000 colonies. This is another start going treatment free, because the probability that there is a colony that adapts, is much higher than starting with one or two hives. Numbers do matter. Also most of them are experienced beekeepers, very experienced beekeepers. Bees don't die from beekeeper faults in their hands.

And there are prerequisites to it: experience in beekeeping, high number of hives.

Re: Winter losses vs. Summer gains

A good example for a 'successful' slow approach is Eric Österlund from Sweden. He has to treat about 70 % of his hives, but about 30 % are continiously untreated. From those he breeds. I met him personally last year on a small cell conference in Germany. Where I got the numbers above from.

Dee Lusby may be a good example for a beekeeper starting with a big number of hives. I also have followed a presentation of another commercial beekeeper with 2,500 hives going treatment free. I see, if I can find the reference for you.

Re: Winter losses vs. Summer gains

>I also asked Michael, how many hives in total were killed in his project so far, excuse: let die. It would be nice to get an answer.

How many died because they were not treated, once I was on natural cell and small cell? As far as I'm concerned, none. None died from Varroa. None died from brood diseases. Have any died over winter? Of course. And all were examined for evidence of mites and brood diseases of which there were none.

Re: Winter losses vs. Summer gains

Originally Posted by Solomon Parker

I keep asking, who has gone the slow route and succeeded?

I don't know of anyone. I think the slow method, while having theoretically less risk, is much more difficult than the straight Bond test. If the intent is to force the bees to evolve, you need to provide selective pressure. How much selective pressure is enough?

Re: Winter losses vs. Summer gains

Originally Posted by zhiv9

How much selective pressure is enough?

This is a topic that I would like to see serious discussion about. it is one I do not think one bee breeder much less beekeeper actually has a grip on. I know for a fact that selection pressure in other cases. That result in something more like mutation type results. are on the scale of 1 in thousands. that means for every several thousand individuals produced. only one is selected. and that process for selection requires days just to examine for desirable traits.

But we are talking about promoting natural methods. so what would be natural selection or more accurately survival rates? I see a lot of comments about the high losses of treatment free beekeepers. High compared to what? Traditional beekeepers? I don't see that. I also see traditional beekeepers reporting complete losses. Natural losses? Who even knows what they might be? Can we find out or at least make an informed guesstimate? I suspect natural survival is extremely low. It is critical to how natural selection allows those individual with the ability to resist to move to the forefront. it not only gives them advantage. it clears out the clutter and gives them room to expand at a tremendous rate. It is a feast and famine sort of situation. Every failed colony makes a place for the resistant colony to take up residence. SO nature not only favors the strong it actively destroys the weak. I believe that it is the destruction that is far more important than the advantage. This would tend to favor the hard core bond method. kill em quick so there is room for the indestructible. I don't think many beekeepers would tolerate such methods.